241–250 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor IIRC they are also not symetric They kinda are. Solid state conductors have those virtual particles called holes, that represent the global state of "having fewer electrons around here". You can have transistors where the electrons are carrying charge or where holes are. But the properties of holes and electrons are not completely symmetric. Holes disperse each other more st…
I agree, but think you are talking about the differences of the NPN and PNP transistors, but I'm talking about the differences of the emisor and the collector in the same transistor. In a very naive explanation, you can exchange the emisor and the collector, but in a real cirtuit it is a bad idea. (I'm not sure why. I think it may stil work but it's slower or less efficient, but I'm not sure about the details.)
On discrete transistors, they have different sizes, shapes and levels of doping.
On the "old" planar VLSI transistors, nobody even uses the names. They are both built as small as possible and there's no space to fine-tune any of their characteristics. But on some of the new 3D VLSI transistors they are different again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> even laypeople understand it more scientifically Laypeople use more scientific-sounding words, sure, but what more scientific way is there to understand something than to have discovered it yourself through experiment?
Experimentation brings knowledge, not understanding. Franklin did not understand electricity, but merely observed it. It wasn't until we discovered the electron proper and Maxwell did his work that we-- anyone-- understood electricity. Understanding comes from scientific and academic rigor after the discovery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Negation, being a concept, exists only in the mind. Same with "things". A thing is a noun; a part of speech. The "real world" is undifferentiated quanta.
I have an hard time coming to terms with this platonic view of the mind, as if our minds where some kind of extradimensional aliens playing with this sandbox of "undifferentiated quanta" sometime called reality. I understand how it make sense saying that the concept of spedrunning is completely absent in Ocarina Of Time and only exists in the player playing the game, but I do not see how this would be a good philosop…
We have tons of sayings for this like "the map is not the territory," "wherever you go that's where you are."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [sic]Cause there’s no such thing as three apples or three people. I understand what you're saying. Occurrences like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species demonstrate that the idea of "species" isn't firm and that what truly matters is each individual and their unique circumstances. But this seems to me to be more a limitation of language and philosophy than a repudiation of math. As you pointed out, it's all e…
I’d argue that is because the maths we are familiar with are familiar exactly because they are useful, and repeatedly so. But that is a philosophical oroboros.
Because he didn't know anything about electrons, and the experiment he did involving rubbing amber and glass rods on fur and silk cloth only showed that something was transferred between the two materials, and that when the material containing the substance was brought near to the other material containing the other substance, the property conferred by the substances appeared to negate. If you read Teaching Introduct…
Suppose that they had realized back then that electricity was going to become one of the most important technologies humans have in the future and decided that they should make a major effort to figure out the direction of the charge so future generations wouldn't get stuck with the wrong convention. All the top scientists, engineers, inventors, and crackpots in the world try to come up with some way to tell. Was the…
Part of the problem we have in trying to put ourselves in their minds is that some or most of their reasoning is unrecognizable to us as "science." If you try reading EG Newton's Principia Mathematica it's laid out in prose from first principles using geometry and is essentially unrecognizable except with a strong education in Euclid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> inductors, etc. which are also accumulators. In what sense do inductors accumulate? Batteries and capacitors accumulate (i.e. integrate) current. Inductors differentiate current: v = L di/dt means you get voltage out of current changes.
I think this might be why accumulate is a good term. If one needed an accumulator that regulated voltage an inductor might work. Warning I barely know what I'm talking about.
If you apply a constant voltage to an inductor, the current through the inductor will increase linearly as the inductor stores energy in the magnetic field.
Perhaps part of why the intuition can break down is that in real life, inductors tend to be much "leakier" energy storage devices than capacitors. If you store some energy in an inductor and then change the voltage across it to zero (practically: short its terminals together), in theory a perfect inductor will maintain a constant current forever and the energy stored does not change. In practice inductors (with an exception for things like superconducting magnets) are made from wire that has a resistance, and so the current in a real shorted inductor will eventually decay to zero. This means that in practical terms inductors are mostly only useful for short term energy storage. On the other hand, real-life insulating materials (like air, vacuum, or Teflon) can can be pretty close to perfect insulators allowing real capacitors to store energy more or less indefinitely... certainly on timescales of years.
Because he didn't know anything about electrons, and the experiment he did involving rubbing amber and glass rods on fur and silk cloth only showed that something was transferred between the two materials, and that when the material containing the substance was brought near to the other material containing the other substance, the property conferred by the substances appeared to negate. If you read Teaching Introduct…
It really seems like had a rationale: "We suppose as aforesaid, That Electrical Fire is a common Element, of which every one of the three Persons abovementioned has his equal Share before any Operation is begun with the Tube. A who stands on Wax, and rubs the Tube, collects the Electrical Fire from himself into the Glass; and his Communication with the common Stock being cut off by the Wax, his Body is not again imme…
> We assume, as stated earlier, that electrical fire is a common element, equally shared among the three mentioned individuals before any operation with the tube begins. Person A, who stands on wax and rubs the tube, transfers the electrical fire from his body into the glass tube. Since his connection to the common stock is cut off by the wax, his body is not immediately replenished. Person B, also standing on wax, passes his knuckle near the tube and receives the electrical fire collected by the glass from A. B’s connection to the common stock is also cut off, so he retains the additional amount received. To person C, who is standing on the floor, both A and B appear electrified. C, having the normal amount of electrical fire, gets a spark when approaching B, who has an excess, and gives a spark to A, who has a deficit. If A and B touch, the spark between them is stronger because the difference in their electrical fire is greater. After they touch, there is no spark between either of them and C, as the electrical fire in all three is equalized. If they touch while being electrified, the equality is maintained, and the fire circulates continuously.
> This has led to new terms. We say B and similar bodies are positively electrified, and A is negatively electrified; or rather, B is electrified plus, and A minus. In our experiments, we electrify bodies as plus or minus as needed. These terms are used until philosophers provide better ones. To electrify plus or minus, it’s essential to know that the parts of the tube or sphere being rubbed attract the electrical fire from the rubbing object during friction. Once friction stops, these parts are ready to give the received fire to any body with less. Thus, the fire can be circulated, as Mr. Watson demonstrated, or accumulated or subtracted from any body, depending on the connection with the rubber or receiver, while cutting off communication with the common stock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, I see many questions that start with “If the electrons are flowing from the negative terminal…” The movement of electrons is inconsequential. It’s the magnetic fields between electrons that provide the power in an electric circuit. These fields actually don’t even travel through the wires! They move around the space outside the wires. Ask anyone who has routed a differential signal pair :)
Should I think about it as ripples traveling through the magnetic field like a wave?
You can see the voltage “ripple” through both branches of the circuit, reflect of the ends of the branches, and eventually settle into steady state. There are limits to this way of thinking (for example, water can’t travel in the space between “tubes”, but electricity can), but it is a very good way to approximate it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was hoping someone would catch that ;)
Why?
Carefully qualifying every single statement causes people to stop listening, because they don't care. It's better to correct oneself after-the-fact. Make it a topic of discussion once people are hooked. Introducing a simple error for someone to unravel does that.